[Assam] Beef eating; Much ado over nothing

[Ram Sarangapani]

C'da,

>That is why I was curious about Mohan's explanation that ">"But >from a
certain point in time we don't eat Beef." and how that jives >with Hinduism
not having any dogmas.

The reason, from what I have read in the past and that which seems most
plausible, is that beef-eating by Hindus stopped because during times of
famine or drought and when farmers had little else, cattle were slaughtered.
The cow, however, was the golden goose (ploughing/milk etc), and the
intellectuals wanted farmers NOT to kill them and thus rob them of the only
salvation to overcome their plights.

But telling farmers not to eat beef with a golden goose theory may not have
had much effect. But if the intellectuals  did encounch this as "God's
will", people would pay heed.

Over the centuries, this has become more of a religious frevor and thus the
holy cow.

Now, lets take other religions: Pigs are banned in Islam. This, I don't
think came actually from God, but probably, because pork was a big
healh-risk (tape worms etc). The best way to make people avoid eating pork
would be to put it in the God context.

There are similar things in Christianity. The hatred for snakes in
Christianity - goes all the way from Adam & Eve to St. Patrick killing all
the snakes in Ireland.

>"Hinduism is not a religion, but a way of life" was a
>non-response to the question of what defines Hinduism

OK, then can you tell us what defines Christianity or Islam or even
Buddhism? I don't think anyone can.

I believe Hinduism is considered a way of life, because of one single factor
- it is not an 'organized religion' nor does it have one person that the
faithful can swear by  (Buddha, Mohammad or Christ) - ie no messenger to
deliver the celestial message.

--Ram


On 6/20/06, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
> >Sure, C'da. You and Barua could make all the rules, but then it has
> >to >ultimately be followed by the masses, don't you think? :-)
>
>
> *** Hammurabi I ain't Ram. Not into rule making or law-giving. In
> fact I am quite the opposite. I would just as soon tear those laws
> and rules that rob people of freedoms down. Like the rule about
> beef-eating prohibition.
>
> That is why I was curious about Mohan's explanation that ">"But from
> a certain point in time we don't eat Beef." and how that jives with
> Hinduism not having any dogmas.
>
> You did not answer my question either.
>
> Appears to me, in the absence of a better explanation from someone in
> the know, that "Hinduism is not a religion, but a way of life" was a
> non-response to the question of what defines Hinduism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 9:22 AM -0500 6/20/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
> >I think Mohan's response seems to be the one that makes a lot of
> >sense. (BTW: Welcome Mohan to the net)
> >
> >C'da, I think the 'Hinduism is a way of life' idea was popularized
> >by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan in his book '  A Hindu View of Life'
> >
> >  >"Does it therefore mean that one can make one's own RULES
> >or >ethos, on the fly, to suit one's need on a given day?"
> >
> >Sure, C'da. You and Barua could make all the rules, but then it has
> >to ultimately be followed by the masses, don't you think? :-)
> >
> >--Ram
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060620/37e6913a/attachment.htm>